There’s barely more than a weekend standing between us and Judgment Day for Massachusetts Democrats. On Tuesday, the state’s holding a special election to pick a replacement for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, and the bases of both parties are apparently a-quiver with dread and anticipation, respectively.

You could guess it was going to be an intense final stretch yesterday, when a new poll came out from Suffolk University showing Republican Scott Brown leading Democratic nominee Martha Coakley by four percentage points, 50 percent to 46. That’s only the second poll to give Brown a lead, and the race is obviously too close to call — but still, trailing by four in Massachusetts can’t feel great for Democrats. As pollster David Paleologos put it, “It’s a Brown-out!”

Republican activists see Brown’s blossoming chances as an opportunity to deal a crippling blow to the Obama administration, and are mobilizing to turn his bounce into an actual win. Politico reports that, across the country, other GOP campaigns are turning themselves temporarily into remote offices for Brown. In New York and Connecticut, Republican candidates for governor and the Senate are urging supporters to donate to Brown, and travel to Massachusetts to volunteer. In Florida, Republican Senate rivals Marco Rubio and Gov. Charlie Crist are trying to outdo each other in their support for the candidate.. And as far off as Texas, local Republicans are phone banking for their Massachusetts brother-in-arms.

It’s understandable for the GOP’s base to get all riled up. Running off with Kennedy’s seat at the climax of the healthcare fight in Congress would have undeniable symbolic weight. In one independent ad advocating Brown, the narrator explains, “We need Scott Brown’s vote in Washington. Together, let’s stop the politicians’ takeover of our healthcare.”

In an article today in the National Review Online entitled “Dems Feeling Heat Over Kennedy Seat,” conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg takes it one step further. Brown, Goldberg points out, is “not just any Republican, but an actual conservative, as opposed to some me-too Republican who promises to drive in the same direction as liberals.”

Goldberg captures the substance of conservative excitement when he argues that Coakley isn’t just suffering because it’s some metaphysically “bad” time for Democrats. Rather, the party in power is the author of its own sad destiny.

The Democrats’ “bad climate” is a direct result of how they’ve governed. The populist backlash is fueled by a sense that Democrats are acting on their preferred agenda and by their own rules. From the shenanigans of the people who write our tax code and collect our taxes to special deals and secret arrangements for big businesses and legislators who play ball, the Democrats have abandoned transparency in favor of transparent arrogance.

Of course, if we take Goldberg’s word for it, then we’d have to assume that voters in Massachusetts don’t actually want healthcare reform to pass. But there’s pretty clear evidence that they do. Likewise, does it really seem likely that Bay State voters are engaged in some kind of populist uprising against Democrats being too cozy with business, and are hence voting for the candidate who opposes the president’s proposal to tax the big banks to recoup the bailout money?

Which is more probable?

Option One: Massachusetts voters, like voters everywhere, are displeased with the groaning national economy and sky-high unemployment. Democrats are staying home, disillusioned by their party’s ineffectuality in power, while Republicans are all excited about the success their guys have had in blocking the majority’s agenda. And all this has been exacerbated by Coakley’s general election campaign, which nearly every political observer agrees was too little, too late, and has been plagued with mistakes ever since she realized she really had to run hard.

Option two: Massachusetts voters, some of the most liberal in the country, have seen the conservative light just a year after voting in vast numbers for President Obama and are for some reason expressing this view by turning against the policy positions that they in fact hold dear.

Seems like that second option could use some work in the logic department. 

With Massachusetts Democrat Martha Coakley having a surprisingly hard time in her race to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate, her party’s turning to some big guns for the stretch run. Like President Obama.

Obama filmed a video on Coakley’s behalf that went out to Democrats in Massachusetts Thursday. In it, he tells supporters, “I need you to put on your walking shoes again. Knock on doors, call, email, text, and tweet — do everything we can to spread the word.” You can watch the whole thing below.

As the Massachusetts Senate special election wraps up, a couple of unsavory right-wing groups are coming to Republican candidate Scott Brown’s aid — underscoring just how conservative the GOP nominee who’s suddenly causing Bay State Democrats to panic really is.

Brown was endorsed Wednesday by Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, one of the most aggressive organizations against illegal immigration in the country (the group runs a Web page where it encourages people to “report illegal immigrants, employers that hire illegal labor, and smugglers”). Officials say ALIPAC is backing Brown “due to his campaign’s focus on the issue of the illegal immigration.” The endorsement may not be entirely welcome news; the Southern Poverty Law Center points out that the group is aligned with the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which the SPLC claims is a hate group. (FAIR vehemently disputes that charge.)

Tuesday night, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley won the Democratic primary in a special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. If all goes as expected, she’ll win the general election, held early next year, and be sworn in to the Senate.

Coakley was the front-runner going into the night, but her margin of victory was still impressive. In a four-way race, Coakley still managed to pick up a plurality of 47 percent, beating Rep. Michael Capuano’s 28 percent and the 13 percent and 12 percent that Alan Khazei and Stephen Pagliuca were able to pull in, respectively.

Beyond just giving Coakley the opportunity to take Kenedy’s place in the Senate, Tuesday’s vote represented a milestone for Massachusetts: This is the first time either party has nominated a woman for one of the state’s Senate seats.

Voters are heading to the polls in Massachusetts Tuesday, in the first step towards picking a longer-term replacement for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. This vote is just the primary — the general won’t be held until early next year — but given the Democratic advantage, it will all but decide the final outcome.

The race has flown under the radar thus far, largely because state attorney General Martha Coakley has consistently been favored in polls. She’s running against Rep. Michael Capuano, Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca and Alan Khazei, who started the community service organization City Year.

There is one interesting dynamic to the race. Former President Bill Clinton endorsed Coakley recently. That pits him against former Gov. Michael Dukakis, the Democratic presidential nominee in 1988; Dukakis is backing Capuano.

Currently, Kennedy’s seat is held by Paul Kirk.